Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 22-cv-01386-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 11 KUMA KUMA LLC, AND WHY SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION EXISTS 12 Defendant.

13 Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter moves for default judgment, asking for 14 $4,000 in damages under the California Unruh Act, $4,767 in attorneys’ fees and costs, 15 and an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mot. (dkt. 22). 16 Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law 17 claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” 18 litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this 19 will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh 20 Act claim. See Vo v. Choi, No. 20-55737, 2022 WL 4362289, at *3–4 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 21 2022); Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Maciel, 21-cv- 22 3743, 2022 WL 395316, at *2–5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). Plaintiff is therefore ordered to 23 show cause why this Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 24 the Unruh Act claim. 25 With respect to the plaintiff’s ADA claim, federal courts “have an independent 26 obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a 27 challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Consistent 1 should not be dismissed for lack of Article II] standing. In response, both the plaintiff and 2 plaintiffs counsel must submit separate declarations sworn under penalty of perjury. The 3 plaintiffs declaration must substantiate the jurisdictional allegations as to the plaintiff's A || intent to return to the defendant’s establishment. Counsel’s declaration must describe, in 5 detail, the investigation counsel conducted to ensure that their client visited the 6 establishment and intends to return there. The Court may also schedule an in-person 7 evidentiary hearing to test the veracity of the jurisdictional allegations submitted in 8 response to this order. 9 The plaintiff and counsel must respond within 21 days of this order. Failure to 10 respond will result in a dismissal of this action with prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Ee 12 Dated: October 20, 2022 CHARLES R. BREYER «13 United States District Judge

16 5 17 5 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28